Chatter on another thread poses the rather irrelevant question of whether the opinions of German citizens, or their chief Executive, are relevant metrics by which to measure the performance of President Obama. Obama haters, particularly those who look to the English royalty as symbols of leadership, have argued that Obama cannot lead. Many of the same people have championed the Tea Party, outsiders with no experience or expertise in governance, as an important reform movement in this nation’s history. So it seems appropriate to suggest a list of metrics by which the accomplishments of Obama and the Tea Party can be compared.

ECONOMY

When the US economy faced the specter of wholesale bank defaults in 2008 during the run-up to the first election of Obama, President Bush proposed a bank bailout but could not secure (could not lead?) enough Republicans to support the idea. McCain pleaded ignorance on economic issues, and the Obama team took over the effort, rewriting the two page Bush team outline into a comprehensive program that maximized prospects for success. Despite Bush’s efforts, the bill failed initially in the House, but was ultimately approved by a vote of 263-171, with 91 Republicans voting in favor.

The program can only be described as a success. Of $608 billion paid out, $367 billion has been returned, and another $183 billion has been paid in interest—a return of over 90% as of August 2013. Intervention in the economy can be evaluated in terms of many factors, but let’s look at Federal tax revenue. In 2005 dollars, revenue was $2.3 trillion in 2007, dropped to $1.9 in 2009, and has rebounded to an estimated $2.3 trillion in 2013 and $2.5 trillion in 2014. Many economists attribute a significant part of the recovery to Obama programs, TARP (which was truly bipartisan, supported by both Bush and Obama, and crafted in substantial part by the Obama team) and the stimulus bill.

Of course, the Obama team also supported regulatory reform to undo some of the worst aspects of the Phil Gramm’s devastating effects as a champion of de-regulation. Gramm, a Texas Republican identified by Time magazine as one of the architects of the meltdown, was responsible for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, that had separated commercial banks from Wall Street. The Dodd Frank Bill, while far from perfect, undoes some of Gramm’s mischief. To be sure, the Tea Party gets some credit for delaying implementing regulations—and putting the recovering economy again at risk.

HEALTH CARE

This would be my first choice as a metric; I think one of the most ludicrous claims that Obama cannot lead comes from those who disagree with the policies in the ACA. By my metrics, passage of a health care reform bill, originally crafted by Republicans, in the face of disciplined and unanimous opposition by Republicans, is one of the most stunning legislative accomplishments of my lifetime. Of course, we could look at the 40 times the House has tried to repeal the ACA, or efforts to challenge it at the Supreme Court. These efforts give Obama 42 victories, and a big goose egg to the Tea Party. I suppose you have to give them one win in slowing down the regulations to implement the Act, so call it 42-1. A bigger margin than New Zealand over Luna Rosa. It remains to be seen if the cost-control mechanisms in the bill are sufficient, but reform of health care was sought by 8 different presidents—and accomplished by one.

RENEWABLE ENERGY/ENERGY CONSERVATION

One of the aspects of the Obama stimulus program attacked by the right, and particularly by those involved in the carbon business, was renewable energy. Yet using any metric, those efforts have been effective. Non-hydro renewables in the United States’ energy portfolio have increased from 3% of the supply to 5.8% of the supply in the short time between when Obama took office and June 30, 2012. The Obama administration has successfully adopted rules—largely supported by the automobile industry—that will increase fuel economy from under 30 miles per gallon to over 54.

SEQUESTRATION

One of the few successes of the Tea Party has been to require sequestration rather than negotiate an overall pattern of targeted program cuts. It may be a political victory—at the moment—but it is hardly reform.

The title question should read, "Can Obama lead ... period?" We've seen almost indication that he can, and the world ... right now especially regarding Syria and his waffling on stopping the use of chemical WMDs ... is getting fed up with it.

Economy: 7 out of 8 jobs produced by Obama are part-time. Average Americans earnings since he declared the recession over have dropped by over $2,200. Very serious failure.

Healthcare: Is in total disarray. My monthly bill has almost double during the last 3 years. He has granted waivers for big businesses but not individuals, the exchanges aren't open, and a huge percentage of doctors say they will retire early. Hardly a success.

Renewable energy may be helpful in the future, but the amount of money spent, compared to the amount of energy produced is pathetic. Time will tell. For now, Fracking has kept us out of war, and made us energy independent.

As for the sequester, Obama just has to outline his plan for spending and I'm sure he'd have a shot at success.

And one more thing. Obama has set race relations back in this country by 30 years. He has been a horrible president, seizing any black tragedy for his own gratification, while ignoring black on white crime, and black on black crime for that matter.

It is a good idea to develop metrics for performance and for success. It is essential that they be measurable--not ad hominem attacks. It is even better that they be used. Is this task beyond our conservative commenters? Can we expect more fishing videos instead of substance?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum